Where to for Super Rugby?

[hoggy]

How does that end up looking if our best team is inferior to 4 or 5 of the NZ teams? How many teams do we get to enter in it and how much of the revenue from it do we get?

I just remain wholly unconvinced that a solely domestic competition is going to lead anywhere if it doesn't have the necessary firepower to draw enough quality players to play in it and hence be a strong enough competition.

Anyway, clearly you are convinced that it is easily the best option moving forward.

Maybe it could work, but the Kiwis would have to accept the competition as a stand alone professional competition with equalization that would bring, and I'm just not convinced they will, but looks like its what we're gonna get so I hope your right.

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe it could work, but the Kiwis would have to accept the competition as a stand alone professional competition with equalization that would bring, and I'm just not convinced they will, but looks like its what we're gonna get so I hope your right.

Like it or not, rugby is an international game and the game is far healthier internationally than it is here.

We are at least partly reliant on having a product that attracts interest overseas to generate revenue. That is going to be far easier if we have New Zealand's quality as part of it rather than just our own teams/players.

It's also going to need private equity but I feel like that competition has a far greater opportunity of having the sort of international interest that would make investment attractive.

 

[The Honey Badger]

How long are you going to run your 6 team competition for?

I think it is hard to justify running for longer than a double round robin so you get a 12 week competition including finals. I think a larger competition is going to give you a better chance of building something economically viable long term because you can run it for longer and there is more variety in opponents.

I think having a purely internal competition is going to continue sending our rugby backwards and won't provide nearly the increased interest because one of our teams will win it and every game is against another Australian team.

Isn't that the very same argument that says a domestic comp will engage supporters and viewers?

 

[Braveheart81]

Isn't that the very same argument that says a domestic comp will engage supporters and viewers?

Yes, people use that as a big reason why having a domestic comp will be more popular.

I just don't agree. I think the quality of the overall competition and derived from that how much the fans care about it has a far bigger impact than believing your team has a better chance of winning.

Avoiding playing NZ teams regularly because we don't win often enough isn't a recipe for a successful competition in my view.

 

[Adam84]

How does it weaken their depth if those players who would move to Australia aren't playing Super Rugby already? What product is there to devalue if one doesn't exist? This is making no sense.

Also if Australia only fields 5 teams in a Trans Tasman comp, the whole thing will be dead before it begins.

You've got people stilled viewing this comp as a development comp for International rugby. I give up. Professional rugby is dead in Australia with views like this.

So You’re suggesting the only players who would move to Australian teams are those who aren’t good enough to play super rugby now? Does this not then come back to the competitiveness issue. Who said there is no product which exists, I can assure you NZRU are not putting all their eggs in ta 5v5 trans Tasman comp, they’ll be looking at South Africa and Japan closely, and they’ll have COAs on the table with only 3 Aussie teams.

As for the rest of it, well yeah, this whole concept might be dead before it even begins because Australia can’t field 5 competitive teams, even if it grabs the leftovers from the Itm cup..

My comments have nothing to do with viewing this as a development company for international rugby, my comments are purely about a supply vs demand issue.

 

[Adam84]

I think it more that NZRU then loses control of the players, in all honesty as an Aus super coach who would you rather nurse through the comp, players that were going to play for Wallabies or one that was going to play for ABs? We have got to the point where it seems the Wallabies coaching staff are getting some say in how the Super teams are coached/managed, as is how it should be, and NZRU do the same, there is no way Aus would allow Feek etc to come and get involved in helping forwards do scrummaging work, and vice versa.

Correct, they have a pathway which works, and they won’t simply want to compromise that because Australia demands 5 Teams in a trans Tasman comp

 

[qwerty51]

Where do you think the next Super Rugby players for NZ come from? Apart from young players, the next guys coming up did so through the Mitre 10 Cup. They just need an opportunity. Plenty of those types going around in NZ atm but given there's only 5 pro teams in NZ they aren't getting them. It's also not as if the Aus team is going to be filled with them, it's just giving those Mitre 10 Cup players the bench spots in a match over guys whose ceiling in Aus should be club rugby.

NZ might want to do something with South Africa sure but as of right now, with Covid, they ain't doing shit in 2021. NZ needs the TT as much as we do. They're kidding if they think they have a sustainable comp with just them in it. The Mitre 10 loses money. Aetoaera has had a good start but mainly because it off a long break with sport starved eye balls. Let's see how good the crowds are in week 8 when the same fucking teams are playing each other again... 2 matches a week in NZ and in total. You're kidding.

 

[eastman]

Correct, they have a pathway which works, and they won’t simply want to compromise that because Australia demands 5 Teams in a trans Tasman comp

Their pathway has worked up to this point due mainly to the funding off the success of the All Blacks but also from the funding received from the Super Rugby format, which has enabled that success.

Rugby in New Zealand and Australia, like it or not, are intrinsically linked. If New Zealand wants to keep paying their top stars to remain in NZ, they need rugby in Australia to be in a relatively strong position due to; a) the size of the Australian economy (and potential) relative to NZ, b) a dismal Wallabies team (historically one of your main and most popular opponents) does not bode well for the All Blacks and future revenue, as interest dwindles.

Now I'm not saying that the NZ Rugby should be treating as Aus Rugby as a charity case (and they won't) but there will need to be some form of compromise to ensure the long-term success of rugby in the region.

 

[eastman]

I just don't agree. I think the quality of the overall competition and derived from that how much the fans care about it has a far bigger impact than believing your team has a better chance of winning.

Focus on the product, and ensuring that the product is as strong and enticing as possible. If the product is more attractive with New Zealand and a decent spread of New Zealand players across all teams - so be it.

 

[qwerty51]

Yeah I just laugh at the suggestions we need NZ and they don't need us. We both need each other. There's just no way they can go on their own and only make a profit on only the All Blacks brand.

Also don't forget their main income source of AIG are leaving after 2021.

 

[Adam84]

Their pathway has worked up to this point due mainly to the funding off the success of the All Blacks but also from the funding received from the Super Rugby format, which has enabled that success.

Rugby in New Zealand and Australia, like it or not, are intrinsically linked. If New Zealand wants to keep paying their top stars to remain in NZ, they need rugby in Australia to be in a relatively strong position due to; a) the size of the Australian economy (and potential) relative to NZ, b) a dismal Wallabies team (historically one of your main and most popular opponents) does not bode well for the All Blacks and future revenue, as interest dwindles.

Now I'm not saying that the NZ Rugby should be treating as Aus Rugby as a charity case (and they won't) but there will need to be some form of compromise to ensure the long-term success of rugby in the region.

I think some people on here have an expectation of charity, i don't understand why there’s an expectation thaf NZRU should support 5 Aussie teams? I’m just being pragmatic in that I don’t think NZRU will be so forthcoming, they have little to gain between the difference of 3 Aussie teams, or 5.. yet a whole lot to lose.

 

[Adam84]

Where do you think the next Super Rugby players for NZ come from? Apart from young players, the next guys coming up did so through the Mitre 10 Cup. They just need an opportunity. Plenty of those types going around in NZ atm but given there's only 5 pro teams in NZ they aren't getting them. It's also not as if the Aus team is going to be filled with them, it's just giving those Mitre 10 Cup players the bench spots in a match over guys whose ceiling in Aus should be club rugby.
.

Man this comes back to my original point in that you’re asking New Zealand to compromise their own depth, and ultimately devalue their own teams just to sustain extra Australian teams. You’re either targeting new Zealand a future super rugby players, or new Zealands ITM cup who aren’t good enough for a NZ super rugby team.

Do you really not see how NZRU would have concerns over this scenario? It’s like suggesting the establishment of the Rebels or Force wouldn’t impact on the Brumbies, Reds or Waratahs because they’re only recruiting players not signed by those teams.

 

[qwerty51]

How are they compromising their own depth if those players are still eligible for the All Blacks!?! That's the whole point.

They're discards for their current Super teams. It's in their interest to make the comp even so it generates more revenue.

 

[Brumby Runner]

How long are you going to run your 6 team competition for?

I think it is hard to justify running for longer than a double round robin so you get a 12 week competition including finals. I think a larger competition is going to give you a better chance of building something economically viable long term because you can run it for longer and there is more variety in opponents.

I think having a purely internal competition is going to continue sending our rugby backwards and won't provide nearly the increased interest because one of our teams will win it and every game is against another Australian team.

BH, I think this is precisely what a lot of fans here want to see, especially after the poor efforts dished up by SANZAAR over recent years. I wouldn't be averse to a competition that guaranteed an Aussie winner each year and more local derbies, if it can be supplemented by a TT Champions Cup.

 

[eastman]

BH, I think this is precisely what a lot of fans here want to see, especially after the poor efforts dished up by SANZAAR over recent years. I wouldn't be averse to a competition that guaranteed an Aussie winner each year and more local derbies, if it can be supplemented by a TT Champions Cup.

It's probably been raised one million times here, but I don't think Rugby Australia should be designing their competition around the preferences of greenandgold forum users if they are interested in growth and sustainability (longer than 10 years).

It would be interesting to poll the preferences of GAGR users under the age of 35 compared to those over it - I think you'd end up with some contrasting results.

 

[Silverado]

It's probably been raised one million times here, but I don't think Rugby Australia should be designing their competition around the preferences of greenandgold forum users if they are interested in growth and sustainability (longer than 10 years).

It would be interesting to poll the preferences of GAGR users under the age of 35 compared to those over it - I think you'd end up with some contrasting results.

Of course they don't design their policies on posts here. It's pure speculation without the benefit of back stories that's just a bit of fun. I'd be interested in a poll of GAGR posters who are under 35.

 

[The Honey Badger]

But is that really the best way forward for Australia. If some PE can be encouraged, what if both NZ & Aus run with 6 team individual domestic competitions. That gives you 6 games a week for broadcasters, plus the added advantage of a champions league at the end of each countries domestic advantage.

And Australia, a 6th team in NSW, grow your biggest market, a game each weekend.

Yes a TT comp looks likely, but is it the best long term option for Australia.

I think you are arguing for a 6 team domestic comp, which would be 3 games for each Aus and NZ.

They will be different broadcasters for each market

 

[kiap]

They will be different broadcasters for each market

I'm not sure emphasing that has much pertinence. There have been different broadcasters for each market since 1996 (or even 1986).

RA (and for that mattter NZR, SARU and the rest) will still need to test matches to survive. They'll try to package up all their wares to flog in their own market and beyond.

That approach will continue and, of itself, doesn't lock in any given competition format.

 

[hoggy]

I think you are arguing for a 6 team domestic comp, which would be 3 games for each Aus and NZ.

They will be different broadcasters for each market

Yes, there would be separate broadcast deals and I doubt if the kiwis would be interested in a 6th team anyway, but Foxtel & Sky need content, with all teams involved in a champions league at the culmination of the domestic component. I think it overall would be more attractive for the broadcasters when you can schedule 6 games over the weekend.

 

[Derpus]

BH, I think this is precisely what a lot of fans here want to see, especially after the poor efforts dished up by SANZAAR over recent years. I wouldn't be averse to a competition that guaranteed an Aussie winner each year and more local derbies, if it can be supplemented by a TT Champions Cup.

Pipe dream. How does it work? where does the money come from? A TT comp is saleable now. Just.

A rando comp made out of dust is not. So how do you fund a comp that requires a lot of travel and has to compete with international salaries?

NRC didn't exactly take off.